I read the patent last night. I don't think that they ever promised that it would result in high pixel counts and moderately inexpensive production. All that they have stated is that this is novel. ( I don't have a copy in front of me, so I might be wrong).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It makes very tedious reading and there seems to be a lot of repitition, no doubt for legal reasons, but there's an implication in the extract I quoted a couple of posts ago that the new invention by Nikon does not suffer from the disadvantages of the existing 3-CCD/prism method which, as they mention, is large, complex and expensive.

Both systems need 3 'light receiving surfaces' for each pixel, whether you call them photodiodes or CCDs, but one method uses dichroic prisms instead of dichroic mirrors. Both systems seem very complex to me and it's difficult to imagine how so much engineering could be fitted into a 5 micron wide space.

But as you imply, before the patent expires in 2023, nanotechnology might have progressed to the point where such an idea can be implemented economically on relatively small, high pixel count sensors.

But as you imply, before the patent expires in 2023, nanotechnology might have progressed to the point where such an idea can be implemented economically on relatively small, high pixel count sensors.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And as quantum efficiency increases with methods like this, will people whine that cameras no longer have ISO 100? That should be interesting. Few people seem to understand that with capture depth remaining equal, lower base ISOs are not indicators of quality, but rather, indicators of inefficiency, and therefore higher noise at common ISOs.